Purgatory, a unique Catholic doctrine

[kepha31]

It is really surprising to me that one would conflate the bosom of Abraham with Purgatory - the first being a blissful state where the poor man is being comforted and no temporal sins are being purged and the latter being a dire place of suffering and fire where guilty sinners undergo torment. As for the rich man, he was suffering, indeed.

Pharisaical Jewish theology held that souls go to Sheol after death and Sheol is not a sort of Limbo where there is nothing happening. Rather, it is divided into a positive side (bosom of Abraham) and a negative side (torment and suffering). This state continues until the resurrection of the dead and the Day of the Lord.

As for Paradise, the word means a park. Eden and Paradise are one and the same. Both are states of happiness and bliss and there is no particular reason to consider them to be a state of being like Purgatory. Here is a helpful article - Paradise - Wikipedia

If it's not heaven, then what is it?

 

[kepha31]

Actually, I'm encouraged to know that this is so. And I do believe that certain websites continue to teach the traditional view of the faith. But it's also true that much of this has been watered down in recent days.

Let's take another example. The last several popes have floated the idea that even a sincere Pagan who never heard the Gospel and, maybe, not even the name of Jesus, can still be saved since the blood of Christ covers all, including those who don't know it to be so.

These popes and sympathetic clergy and theologians have been careful not to declare it so, but just to state the possibility or say that it's not unthinkable, etc. Yet a recent survey of American Roman Catholics showed that only 9% of the faithful disagree with the idea when polled--a far lower figure than for any of the major Protestant churches. Once a longstanding teaching is compromised, even unofficially, many laypersons who found the old teaching harsh but accepted it because that was the church's teaching will easily conclude that there's no longer an obligation on their part to adhere to one or the other.

Nonsense.
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338
Catechism of the Catholic Church - IntraText

 

[kepha31]

What has changed, from what I am hearing from some Catholics, is that Purgatory is not to be feared or dreaded because a loving God would not torture His children. Rather, Purgatory is a pleasant state of being like taking a refreshing shower.

"Some Catholics" as you claim (that you failed to quote) are wrong, and neither is Paul in 1 Corinthians 3:15 "He will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire". What just occurred to me is that Protestants see no value in suffering. "Jesus suffered so I don't have to" mentality which may explain the dismissal or minimization of 1 Corinthians 3:15.

"...In fact, suffering and even crisis is our normal situation. The bubble of pain-free and ordered living that we modern Americans think of as our normal state is highly abnormal judged by historical standards. In most cultures throughout human history, people could expect to experience monthly about the same amount of physical pain most of us encounter in a lifetime. Remember, for instance, that anesthetics and pills were invented only about a century ago.

This is probably one of the reasons why people in scientifically advanced cultures tend to be more secular and people in scientifically primitive cultures tend to be more religious: not because religion is based on scientific ignorance or because any scientific discovery has ever disproved a single doctrine of the Christian faith; but because science's child, technology, has conquered or mitigated so many of life's pains and limitations that it has put us into this soundproofed bubble that God has to burst just to get our attention. As C. S. Lewis put it, "God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks in our conscience, but shouts in our pain: It is his megaphone to rouse a deaf world" (The Problem of Pain)..."Library : Problem Of Suffering Reconsidered, The

St. Paul’s understanding of suffering as a participation in salvation is especially evident when he speaks of how his suffering affects others.

In 2 Timothy Paul says, “Take your share of suffering as a good soldier of Christ Jesus” (2:3). Following this Paul speaks of his imprisonment for the preaching of the Gospel, “the gospel for which I am suffering and wearing fetters like a criminal” (v. 9).

We hear how his suffering affects other when he says: “I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation which in Christ Jesus goes with eternal glory. The saying is sure: If we have died with him, we shall also live with him; if we endure, we shall also reign with him” (vv. 10-12).

In this passage, we see clearly that Paul views his suffering as being salvific for others; he suffers to bring the Gospel, the message of salvation, to the people. He endures his suffering so that they may obtain salvation. Dying, living, and reigning with Christ are aspects of salvation; they “go with eternal glory.”

This notion of suffering to obtain eternal glory is also found in Roman 8:17-18 where Paul is speaking of receiving the Spirit of sonship whereby we become children of God and co-heirs with Christ. Paul says: “…and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him. I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us.”

Further on in Romans 8 he tells us, “We know that in everything [suffering] God works for good with those who love him who are called according to his purpose” (v. 28). Those who suffer are called to share in eternal glory, which is made clearly manifest by the resurrection of Christ.

This notion of our suffering and glory go hand in hand with the suffering and glory of Christ. Not only did the resurrection of Christ show his glory, it was also manifested through the cross. John Paul II notes, “In weakness He manifested His power, and in humiliation He manifested all His messianic greatness” (Salvifici Doloris, 22). Christ manifests his power in our suffering and death, which will one day lead to the resurrection.

Elsewhere Paul speaks of his suffering for others so they may obtain glory. He says, “So I ask you not to lose heart over what I am suffering for you, which is your glory” (Ephesians 3:13).

In 2 Corinthians, Paul speaks of how he is afflicted in every way, perplexed, persecuted, struck down, always carrying in his body the death of Jesus (cf. 4:8-10). He also speaks of how in living he is dying for the sake of Christ.

However, suffering is not only for Christ. Paul goes on to say: “Knowing that he who raised the Lord Jesus will raise us also with Jesus and bring us with you into his presence. For it is all for your sake…” (4:14). Notice once again he reveals how suffering leads to being raised. Paul suffers not only for his sake, nor only for Christ’s sake, but also for the sake of others, so that they may be brought into God’s presence.

John Paul II recognizes in this text that “these sufferings enable the recipients of that letter to share in the work of Redemption, accomplished through the suffering and death of the Redeemer” (SD, 20). St. Paul speaks of the notion of glory a few verses later: “For this slight momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison” (4:17).

Colossians 1:24 brings together all that has been said thus far. It summarizes Paul’s view that when he suffers he does so for Christ and for others. We see in this passage that when Paul speaks of suffering for Christ, it necessarily includes suffering for others, namely the church. Here Paul’s teaching on the mystical body is linked most profoundly to his teaching on suffering when he says, “Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church.”

John Paul II notes concerning the notion of making up what is lacking: “This good in itself is inexhaustible and infinite. No man can add anything to it. But at the same time, in the mystery of the Church as His Body, Christ has in a sense opened His own redemptive suffering to all human suffering. Insofar as man becomes a sharer in Christ’s sufferings…to that extent he in his own way completes the suffering through which Christ accomplished the Redemption of the world” (SD, 24).

We must realize that making up what is lacking in Christ’s suffering does not mean that redemption is not completed by Christ. Rather, “it only means that the Redemption, accomplished through satisfactory love, remains always open to all love expressed in human suffering” (SD, 24).

Paul is trying to show us that when we suffer we participate in the saving act of redemption. This is not because Christ did not do all he needed to do, but rather that Christ allows us, by divine will, to participate in this aspect of our own and others’ salvation. Suffering is not meaningless. Paul rejoices because in his suffering he suffers for Christ the head, and Christ the body, the church, bringing about her salvation. He is also joyful because suffering is not useless. John Paul II notes, “Faith in sharing the suffering of Christ brings with it the interior certainty that the suffering person ‘completes what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions’; the certainty that in the spiritual dimension of the work of Redemption he is serving, like Christ, the salvation of his brothers and sisters (SD, 27).

For Paul, suffering leads to hope precisely because of God’s love. He says, “We rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, and hope does not disappoint us, because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us” (Rom. 5:3-5).
Suffering can lead to salvation :: Catholic News Agency

 

[Vicomte13]

Thank you for the excellent testimony and reply. It gave me a real understanding of your perspective. Am I correct in thinking that Catholic Tradition, as well as the Bible are secondary aspects to your faith and your primary faith rests in a personal relationship with God?

We use words differently. I probably don't mean the same thing by the words "faith" and "personal relationship" as you do, so when I answer "Yes" to your question you may well think I am saying something different from what I actually mean.

Nevertheless, yes.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

If it's not heaven, then what is it?

Sheol (called "Hades" in NT Greek).

 

[gabbi0408]

What has changed, from what I am hearing from some Catholics, is that Purgatory is not to be feared or dreaded because a loving God would not torture His children. Rather, Purgatory is a pleasant state of being like taking a refreshing shower.

Interesting, but problematic.

Purgatory is not a place where God tortures us, however it is a place where there is suffering. The suffering is caused by our attachments to sin.

Sanctification involves suffering (Rom. 5:3–5), and purgatory is the final stage of sanctification that some of us need to undergo before we enter heaven.

 

[Albion]

Interesting, but problematic.

Purgatory is not a place where God tortures us, however it is a place where there is suffering. The suffering is caused by our attachments to sin.

Sanctification involves suffering (Rom. 5:3–5), and purgatory is the final stage of sanctification that some of us need to undergo before we enter heaven.

You have good bearings as far as explaining Purgatory goes, and I like that. But what you've explained here is far, far from what a lot of Catholics and Catholic wannabees have made Purgatory into, and they're very adamant about it!

 

[Open Heart]

Was there any reason, therefore, that the Council of Trent limited the canon of scripture and did not include a clause permitting other books, such as the Book or Mormon or Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures to be included by those who found them to be worthy of reading?

It's really not the same thing. The Septuagint was the de facto OT of the Christian world for 1500 years. The question has never been one of what anyone is adding, but rather, what do people want to take out and why?

 

[Albion]

It's really not the same thing. The Septuagint was the de facto OT of the Christian world for 1500 years. The question has never been one of what anyone is adding, but rather, what do people want to take out and why?

Why did the Catholic Church take part of it out of the OT after the Lutherans took out some books on their own?

 

[Open Heart]

Why did the Catholic Church take part of it out of the OT after the Lutherans took out some books on their own?

I would answer if I could, but I'm not sure why some of the Septuagint was removed from the OT canon.

 

[Albion]

I would answer if I could, but I'm not sure why some of the Septuagint was removed from the OT canon.

Fair enough, but some of it was removed. That's worth keeping in mind when the subject of Protestants removing the Apocrypha rolls around again.

 

[concretecamper]

I would answer if I could, but I'm not sure why some of the Septuagint was removed from the OT canon.

I would press for an answer since what you have been told is a lie that has been repeated on this forum over and over again.

 

[Vicomte13]

I would answer if I could, but I'm not sure why some of the Septuagint was removed from the OT canon.

We didn't. The Catholic Bible contains the books that the Protestants omitted.

 

[gabbi0408]

Why did the Catholic Church take part of it out of the OT after the Lutherans took out some books on their own?

My understanding is that the Catholic Church did not take any books out. In order to remove books, there would have had to be an official canon. The Septuagint was never an official canon. There were different versions of the Old Testament at the time of Christ.

What the Catholic Church did was decide infallibly which books were inspired and then closed the canon so that none could be taken away. This does not mean, however, that the Church could not add books at some point. For instance those that some of the Eastern Orthodox hold as canonical could be infallibly declared canonical.

Which books are you saying the Catholic Church removed "after" Luther took some books out?

 

[Vicomte13]

My understanding is that the Catholic Church did not take any books out. In order to remove books, there would have had to be an official canon. The Septuagint was never an official canon. There were different versions of the Old Testament at the time of Christ.

What the Catholic Church did was decide infallibly which books were inspired and then closed the canon so that none could be taken away. This does not mean, however, that the Church could not add books at some point. For instance those that some of the Eastern Orthodox hold as canonical could be infallibly declared canonical.

Which books are you saying the Catholic Church removed "after" Luther took some books out?

The differences in the Protestant/Catholic/Orthodox Canons are as follows:

The Catholic Canon still contains 1 and 2 Maccabees, Baruch, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom (of Solomon), Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), and Catholic Daniel is longer than Protestant Daniel, including both the stories of Susanna and Bel and the Dragon.

The Protestants have removed all of these texts from their canon.

The Eastern Orthodox have the Catholic Canon, and additionally have 3 and 4 Ezra (which they call 1 and 2 Esdras), the Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151 and 3 Maccabees.

The Georgian Orthodox also have 4 Maccabees.

The Syrian Orthodox also have Psalms 152-155, as well as 2 Baruch (which contains the Apocalypse of Baruch and the Letter of Baruch).

The Ethiopian Orthodox (an Oriental Orthodox Church) excludes all four books of Maccabees, but three books that are related to their subject matter 1,2 and 3 Maqbayan. The Ethiopian Orthodox canon also includes the Book of Jubilees as well as Enoch. The Ethiopian book of Lamentations contains additional material beyond what is in the Catholic/Protestant/Eastern Orthodox canon. 4 Baruch is included in this canon, but not 2 or 3 Baruch. The Ethiopian Broader Canon also includes the Ethiopian version of Josephus' "Jewish Antiquities" in the Canon.

As to the New Testament canon, Protestant, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox are all in agreement, except that there are 8 additional books in the Ethiopian Broader Canon of the New Testament, including the Ethiopian versions of the Letter of Clement, the Ethiopian version of the Didache,

The Armenian Orthodox canon does not include 3 Corinthians, but it is included in ancient Armenian manuscripts.

So, truth is, there are many canons. The different Orthodox and Catholic canons never prevented unity of all of those churches (and wouldn't today) because the Bible is not a "constitution" or an authority above the Church. Such differences in the canon of Scripture obviously would not work for Protestantism.

 

[bbbbbbb]

If it's not heaven, then what is it?

I would definitely say that it (being Paradise) is, indeed, heaven and that the repentant their was taken to heaven (Paradise) that very day.

 

[bbbbbbb]

The differences in the Protestant/Catholic/Orthodox Canons are as follows:

The Catholic Canon still contains 1 and 2 Maccabees, Baruch, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom (of Solomon), Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), and Catholic Daniel is longer than Protestant Daniel, including both the stories of Susanna and Bel and the Dragon.

The Protestants have removed all of these texts from their canon.

The Eastern Orthodox have the Catholic Canon, and additionally have 3 and 4 Ezra (which they call 1 and 2 Esdras), the Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151 and 3 Maccabees.

The Georgian Orthodox also have 4 Maccabees.

The Syrian Orthodox also have Psalms 152-155, as well as 2 Baruch (which contains the Apocalypse of Baruch and the Letter of Baruch).

The Ethiopian Orthodox (an Oriental Orthodox Church) excludes all four books of Maccabees, but three books that are related to their subject matter 1,2 and 3 Maqbayan. The Ethiopian Orthodox canon also includes the Book of Jubilees as well as Enoch. The Ethiopian book of Lamentations contains additional material beyond what is in the Catholic/Protestant/Eastern Orthodox canon. 4 Baruch is included in this canon, but not 2 or 3 Baruch. The Ethiopian Broader Canon also includes the Ethiopian version of Josephus' "Jewish Antiquities" in the Canon.

As to the New Testament canon, Protestant, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox are all in agreement, except that there are 8 additional books in the Ethiopian Broader Canon of the New Testament, including the Ethiopian versions of the Letter of Clement, the Ethiopian version of the Didache,

The Armenian Orthodox canon does not include 3 Corinthians, but it is included in ancient Armenian manuscripts.

So, truth is, there are many canons. The different Orthodox and Catholic canons never prevented unity of all of those churches (and wouldn't today) because the Bible is not a "constitution" or an authority above the Church. Such differences in the canon of Scripture obviously would not work for Protestantism.

Thank you. The only modification I would make to your fine discussion is that Protestants did not remove "all of these texts from their canon" any more than they removed the Book of Mormon from their canon. You cannot remove something which never existed in your canon. To be consistent, you should have said that the Catholic Church removed from their canon the books accepted by other branches of Christianity.

The simple reality, of course, is that this is a tempest in a teapot as the vast majority of Protestants as well as Catholics are blissfully unaware of any differences. This is not to mention that there is no unique doctrines presented in the deutercanon (or the other books accepted by other Christian churches), so that whether onw believes these documents to be canonical or not has no bearing on one's beliefs.

 

[bbbbbbb]

My understanding is that the Catholic Church did not take any books out. In order to remove books, there would have had to be an official canon. The Septuagint was never an official canon. There were different versions of the Old Testament at the time of Christ.

What the Catholic Church did was decide infallibly which books were inspired and then closed the canon so that none could be taken away. This does not mean, however, that the Church could not add books at some point. For instance those that some of the Eastern Orthodox hold as canonical could be infallibly declared canonical.

Which books are you saying the Catholic Church removed "after" Luther took some books out?

Please see my above discussion. The Catholic Church did not remove any books from the canon at the Council of Trent simply because the canon had not yet been dogmatically determined prior to that time. The Council of Trent, primarily in reaction to the Protestant Reformation, affixed the canon of the Catholic Church as a body of writings distinct and separate from both Protestant as well as the various Orthodox canons.

 

[kepha31]

Please see my above discussion. The Catholic Church did not remove any books from the canon at the Council of Trent simply because the canon had not yet been dogmatically determined prior to that time. The Council of Trent, primarily in reaction to the Protestant Reformation, affixed the canon of the Catholic Church as a body of writings distinct and separate from both Protestant as well as the various Orthodox canons.

Following the Protestant attack on the integrity of the Bible, the Catholic Church infallibly reaffirmed (not dogmatically determined) the divine inspiration of the deuterocanonical books at the Council of Trent in 1546. In doing this, it reaffirmed what had been believed since the time of Christ.
The Christian acceptance of the deuterocanonical books was logical because the deuterocanonicals were also included in the Septuagint, the Greek edition of the Old Testament which the apostles used to evangelize the world. Two thirds of the Old Testament quotations in the New are from the Septuagint. Yet the apostles nowhere told their converts to avoid seven books of it. Like the Jews all over the world who used the Septuagint, the early Christians accepted the books they found in it. They knew that the apostles would not mislead them and endanger their souls by putting false scriptures in their hands—especially without warning them against them.
Examples would be Heb. 11:35 (not found in the Protestant OT) but the story is found in 2 Maccabees 7.
But the apostles did not merely place the deuterocanonicals in the hands of their converts as part of the Septuagint. They regularly referred to the deuterocanonicals in their writings.

The early acceptance of the deuterocanonicals was carried down through Church history. The Protestant patristics scholar J. N. D. Kelly writes: "It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive than the [Protestant Old Testament] . . . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called Apocrypha or deuterocanonical books. The reason for this is that the Old Testament which passed in the first instance into the hands of Christians was . . . the Greek translation known as the Septuagint. . . . most of the Scriptural quotations found in the New Testament are based upon it rather than the Hebrew.. . . In the first two centuries . . . the Church seems to have accept all, or most of, these additional books as inspired and to have treated them without question as Scripture.
​

The canon of Scripture, Old and New Testament, was finally settled at the Council of Rome in 382, under the authority of Pope Damasus I. It was soon reaffirmed on numerous occasions. The same canon was affirmed at the Council of Hippo in 393 and at the Council of Carthage in 397. In 405 Pope Innocent I reaffirmed the canon in a letter to Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse. Another council at Carthage, this one in the year 419, reaffirmed the canon of its predecessors and asked Pope Boniface to "confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church." All of these canons were identical to the modern Catholic Bible, and all of them included the deuterocanonicals.
"Church did not remove any books from the canon at the Council of Trent simply because the canon had not yet been dogmatically determined prior to that time." is a myth.
You won't find a dogmatically determined canon in Trent because the canon was closed at Carthage and reaffirmed down through history. Reaffirmed does not equal dogmatically determined. Trent closed the DISCUSSION, not the CANON.

Matt. 2:16 - Herod's decree of slaying innocent children was prophesied in Wis. 11:7 - slaying the holy innocents.
Matt. 6:19-20 - Jesus' statement about laying up for yourselves treasure in heaven follows Sirach 29:11 - lay up your treasure.
Matt.. 7:12 - Jesus' golden rule "do unto others" is the converse of Tobit 4:15 - what you hate, do not do to others.
Matt. 7:16,20 - Jesus' statement "you will know them by their fruits" follows Sirach 27:6 - the fruit discloses the cultivation.
Matt. 9:36 - the people were "like sheep without a shepherd" is same as Judith 11:19 - sheep without a shepherd.
Matt. 11:25 - Jesus' description "Lord of heaven and earth" is the same as Tobit 7:18 - Lord of heaven and earth.
Matt. 12:42 - Jesus refers to the wisdom of Solomon which was recorded and made part of the deuterocanonical books.
Matt. 16:18 - Jesus' reference to the "power of death" and "gates of Hades" references Wisdom 16:13.
Matt. 22:25; Mark 12:20; Luke 20:29 - Gospel writers refer to the canonicity of Tobit 3:8 and 7:11 regarding the seven brothers.
Matt. 24:15 - the "desolating sacrilege" Jesus refers to is also taken from 1 Macc. 1:54 and 2 Macc. 8:17.
Matt. 24:16 - let those "flee to the mountains" is taken from 1 Macc. 2:28.
Matt. 27:43 - if He is God's Son, let God deliver him from His adversaries follows Wisdom 2:18.
Mark 4:5,16-17 - Jesus' description of seeds falling on rocky ground and having no rootfollows Sirach 40:15.
Mark 9:48 - description of hell where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched references Judith 16:17.
Luke 1:42 - Elizabeth's declaration of Mary's blessedness above all women follows Uzziah's declaration in Judith 13:18.
Luke 1:52 - Mary's magnificat addressing the mighty falling from their thrones and replaced by lowly follows Sirach 10:14.
Luke 2:29 - Simeon's declaration that he is ready to die after seeing the Child Jesus follows Tobit 11:9.
Luke 13:29 - the Lord's description of men coming from east and west to rejoice in God follows Baruch 4:37.
Luke 21:24 - Jesus' usage of "fall by the edge of the sword" follows Sirach 28:18.
Luke 24:4 and Acts 1:10 - Luke's description of the two men in dazzling apparel reminds us of 2 Macc. 3:26.
John 1:3 - all things were made through Him, the Word, follows Wisdom 9:1.
John 3:13 - who has ascended into heaven but He who descended from heaven references Baruch 3:29.
John 4:48; Acts 5:12; 15:12; 2 Cor. 12:12 - Jesus', Luke's and Paul's usage of "signs and wonders" follows Wisdom 8:8.
John 5:18 - Jesus claiming that God is His Father follows Wisdom 2:16.
John 6:35-59 - Jesus' Eucharistic discourse is foreshadowed in Sirach 24:21.
John 10:22 - the identification of the feast of the dedication is taken from 1 Macc. 4:59.
John 10:36 – Jesus accepts the inspiration of Maccabees as He analogizes the Hanukkah consecration to His own consecration to the Father in 1 Macc. 4:36.
John 15:6 - branches that don't bear fruit and are cut down follows Wis. 4:5 where branches are broken off.
Acts 1:15 - Luke's reference to the 120 may be a reference to 1 Macc. 3:55 - leaders of tens / restoration of the twelve.
Acts 10:34; Rom. 2:11; Gal. 2:6 - Peter's and Paul's statement that God shows no partiality references Sirach 35:12.
Acts 17:29 - description of false gods as like gold and silver made by men follows Wisdom 13:10.
Rom 1:18-25 - Paul's teaching on the knowledge of the Creator and the ignorance and sin of idolatry follows Wis. 13:1-10.
Rom. 1:20 - specifically, God's existence being evident in nature follows Wis. 13:1.
Rom. 1:23 - the sin of worshipping mortal man, birds, animals and reptiles follows Wis. 11:15; 12:24-27; 13:10; 14:8.
Rom. 1:24-27 - this idolatry results in all kinds of sexual perversion which follows Wis. 14:12,24-27.
Rom. 4:17 - Abraham is a father of many nations follows Sirach 44:19.
Rom. 5:12 - description of death and sin entering into the world is similar to Wisdom 2:24.
Rom. 9:21 - usage of the potter and the clay, making two kinds of vessels follows Wisdom 15:7.
1 Cor. 2:16 - Paul's question, "who has known the mind of the Lord?" references Wisdom 9:13.
1 Cor. 6:12-13; 10:23-26 - warning that, while all things are good, beware of gluttony, follows Sirach 36:18 and 37:28-30.
1 Cor. 8:5-6 - Paul acknowledging many "gods" but one Lord follows Wis. 13:3.
1 Cor. 10:1 - Paul's description of our fathers being under the cloud passing through the sea refers to Wisdom 19:7.
1 Cor. 10:20 - what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God refers to Baruch 4:7.
1 Cor. 15:29 - if no expectation of resurrection, it would be foolish to be baptized on their behalf follows 2 Macc. 12:43-45.
Eph. 1:17 - Paul's prayer for a "spirit of wisdom" follows the prayer for the spirit of wisdom in Wisdom 7:7.
Eph. 6:14 - Paul describing the breastplate of righteousness is the same as Wis. 5:18. See also Isaiah 59:17 and 1 Thess. 5:8.
Eph. 6:13-17 - in fact, the whole discussion of armor, helmet, breastplate, sword, shield follows Wis. 5:17-20.
1 Tim. 6:15 - Paul's description of God as Sovereign and King of kings is from 2 Macc. 12:15; 13:4.
2 Tim. 4:8 - Paul's description of a crown of righteousness is similar to Wisdom 5:16.
Heb. 4:12 - Paul's description of God's word as a sword is similar to Wisdom 18:15.
Heb. 11:5 - Enoch being taken up is also referenced in Wis 4:10 and Sir 44:16. See also 2 Kings 2:1-13 & Sir 48:9 regarding Elijah.
Heb 11:35 - Paul teaches about the martyrdom of the mother and her sons described in 2 Macc. 7:1-42.
Heb. 12:12 - the description "drooping hands" and "weak knees" comes from Sirach 25:23.
James 1:19 - let every man be quick to hear and slow to respond follows Sirach 5:11.
James 2:23 - it was reckoned to him as righteousness follows 1 Macc. 2:52 - it was reckoned to him as righteousness.
James 3:13 - James' instruction to perform works in meekness follows Sirach 3:17.
James 5:3 - describing silver which rusts and laying up treasure follows Sirach 29:10-11.
James 5:6 - condemning and killing the "righteous man" follows Wisdom 2:10-20.
1 Peter 1:6-7 - Peter teaches about testing faith by purgatorial fire as described in Wisdom 3:5-6 and Sirach 2:5.
1 Peter 1:17 - God judging each one according to his deeds refers to Sirach 16:12 - God judges man according to his deeds.
2 Peter 2:7 - God's rescue of a righteous man (Lot) is also described in Wisdom 10:6.
Rev. 1:4 – the seven spirits who are before his throne is taken from Tobit 12:15 – Raphael is one of the seven holy angels who present the prayers of the saints before the Holy One.
Rev. 1:18; Matt. 16:18 - power of life over death and gates of Hades follows Wis. 16:13.
Rev. 2:12 - reference to the two-edged sword is similar to the description of God's Word in Wisdom 18:16.
Rev. 5:7 - God is described as seated on His throne, and this is the same description used in Sirach 1:8.
Rev. 8:3-4 - prayers of the saints presented to God by the hand of an angel follows Tobit 12:12,15.
Rev. 8:7 - raining of hail and fire to the earth follows Wisdom 16:22 and Sirach 39:29.
Rev. 9:3 - raining of locusts on the earth follows Wisdom 16:9.
Rev. 11:19 - the vision of the ark of the covenant (Mary) in a cloud of glory was prophesied in 2 Macc. 2:7.
Rev. 17:14 - description of God as King of kings follows 2 Macc. 13:4.
Rev. 19:1 - the cry "Hallelujah" at the coming of the new Jerusalem follows Tobit 13:18.
Rev. 19:11 - the description of the Lord on a white horse in the heavens follows 2 Macc. 3:25; 11:8.
Rev. 19:16 - description of our Lord as King of kings is taken from 2 Macc. 13:4.
Rev. 21:19 - the description of the new Jerusalem with precious stones is prophesied in Tobit 13:17.
Exodus 23:7 - do not slay the innocent and righteous - Dan. 13:53 - do not put to death an innocent and righteous person.
1 Sam. 28:7-20 – the intercessory mediation of deceased Samuel for Saul follows Sirach 46:20.
2 Kings 2:1-13 – Elijah being taken up into heaven follows Sirach 48:9.
2 Tim. 3:16 - the inspired Scripture that Paul was referring to included the deuterocanonical texts that the Protestants removed. The books Baruch, Tobit, Maccabees, Judith, Sirach, Wisdom and parts of Daniel and Esther were all included in the Septuagint that Jesus and the apostles used.

The Bereans were GREEK Pharisees who searched the GREEK scriptures accepted as inspired 200 years before Christ. They included the deuterocanonical texts that the Protestants removed.

This exact same canon was implicitly affirmed at the seventh ecumenical council, II Nicaea (787), which approved the results of the 419 Council of Carthage, and explicitly reaffirmed at the ecumenical councils of Florence (1442), Trent (1546), Vatican I (1870), and Vatican II (1965).

 

[gabbi0408]

Please see my above discussion. The Catholic Church did not remove any books from the canon at the Council of Trent simply because the canon had not yet been dogmatically determined prior to that time. The Council of Trent, primarily in reaction to the Protestant Reformation, affixed the canon of the Catholic Church as a body of writings distinct and separate from both Protestant as well as the various Orthodox canons.

Actually, the canon was established and confirmed at more than one council.

In 393 AD there was the Council at Hippo. At the time, St. Augustine was the Bishop of Hippo and he was very active in this particular Council. There were also the Councils of the 4th and 5th Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419 AD respectively.

The Council of Trent dogmatically affirmed the same canon which had been established centuries ago. The dogmatic definition was in response to the Protestant reformers questioning the canon and removing books.